FY 2000 proposal 20126

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Plans will need to be updated or completed to identify specific locations and projects. NEPA analysis will be necessary for all project work. Specialists may be unavailable or have limited time to do planning, analysis and implementation.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

Comments: The proposal failed to provide an adequate justification of managing the vegetation in power line corridors for the benefit of fish and wildlife. Specifically, what is the evidence that temperature increases or sediment inputs were significant factors for fish populations in streams traversed by the power lines? To what extent do these corridors restrict wildlife migration or dispersal? The worth of much of the proposed activities seemed more short-range than many other proposals. How this proposal linked to others in the area was unclear and unstated. The proposed activities were laid out in a fair bit of detail, but appear very intrusive. A combination of passive management and active management where necessary would seem to be more appropriate.

They have a goal to be economically self-sufficient but the proposed activities do not appear to lead to this. It is far from clear that special forest products will eventually pay for all of these manipulations. How will Christmas tree farms provide connectivity over the long-term? These won't provide much cover except in the last year or 2 of the rotation. Other "special forest products" are discussed even less. Restoration of connectivity between late successional and old growth habitats is best measured by observing whether connections are provided for species of concern. This is unclear. It is unclear that thinning and pruning to enhance understory vegetation would maintain animal species diversity, or that that should be the goal in small areas. This depends on the species of concern and the scale at which diversity is a concern. They should better describe the actual location of the project. How much stream interaction is there? The biological monitoring was weak or non-existent. Some form of bioassessment could have been included in the monitoring program, not just stream temperature and forest stand surveys but also fish distribution and wildlife movements.

Much of the proposed activities seemed like the responsibility of other agencies, e.g., trimming vegetation around the power towers and much of the feasibility of the plan centered around one person being available and that was stated as unlikely. On page 24, they describe funding limits through the Forest Service that could jeopardize the implementation of the project.

The proposal's strengths include that it did a good job integrating fish and wildlife objectives and the emphasis on maintaining relatively natural vegetative communities in transmission corridors is admirable. Also admirable is the connection between the land management objectives of the Forest Service and the historical cultural objectives of the Warm Springs tribe.

Comment:

Comment:

Transmission line safety is not a fish and wildlife objective.

Clearly explain expected outcomes and benefits.

Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.

Comment:

Comment: